In order for there to be suffering, as I see it, you need two things, the physical component which creates the context for the suffering to occur (a sensory organ which experiences suffering and an object to suffer over) and a mental component of craving.

Dukkha ("suffering") is distinguished from pain, which can also be a kind of neutral feeling. What we call "physical pain," is defined by not simply its physical, but the aversion to pain. A Buddha, from what I remember, is said to feel physical pain but does not experience it mentally. Recognizing the physical interaction, but not labeling it, "I" or "mine", the pain has no existential meaning for him; in a sense, it does not exist. An analogy might be Arnold Schwarzanegger as the Terminator -- in one scene of the movie, when asked if he feels pain, he says coldly that he detects injury, but does not experience the emotional response humans call pain. Is this similar to the Buddha's own experience of pain?

Anyway, Theravada Buddhism does not seem particularly concerned with the physical component of suffering, except to the extent that the basic nature of reality constrains behavior (so, in order for behavior to be skillful, it must conform to the laws of reality, but Theravadins do not bother considering it fundamental to know these laws, in biology, physics, etc.). "Medicine" is something even forbidden for monks to practice (although perhaps this only applies to the superstitious "folk medicine" practices, like Ayurveda).

Now, a possible justification for this is that it is, in some way, easier to end all suffering through control of the mental component than manipulating the physical component. A Buddhist story I've heard on this point is about a king or queen who wanted to cover the world in leather, but their advisor recommended they just wear leather on their feet (hence the invention of shoes). The point is that it's easier to care after the point of contact -- your feet with the ground, your mind with your life -- than to try to control the whole circumstance -- the entire ground, all of reality.

But still, this doesn't negate the fact that scientific progress has an impact on suffering, because it removes various contexts in which craving might occur. I have heard descriptions of the lives of Egyptian laborers or those who built the Great Wall of China, or of the tribes in Africa today, and these kinds of primitive societies do not seem like they would make a person as happy as modern, prosperous nations. This coheres to what I've heard of psychology's view on the relationship between happiness and wealth: although extravagant wealth has no impact on happiness (the existence of luxuries does not remove craving, so no suffering reduced), but a basic subsistence, which could even be measured in dollars, does contribute to happiness. I think it's pretty naive, for instance, to actually believe the myth that Tibetans or Bhutanese can be dirt-poor, face political oppression, famine, disease, etc., and yet still be happier than average.

I don't doubt that it is possible for an individual to be happy despite circumstance, but collectively, people are always carried by circumstance, either they're lucky or victims of circumstance. The kind of mental purity that comes from Dhamma practice is unconditioned, such that even superficially practicing Buddhism does not ensure happiness.

Individually, a person born in ancient times who was reborn in modern times may have been about as happy, or more or less, depending on how much desire and aversion they felt (a basic notion of existentialism: you can get used to anything. A person born in medieval times could be just as happy as a person today, because they weren't aware of the possibilities of what we have today, so there was no such thing for them to crave and few people obsessively crave over fantasies, but instead, they crave things which are more immediate -- a medieval person would crave something close to his time, which he could see and touch.). However, collectively it's a different matter. Nobody, as I see it, can deny that advancements in medicine, consumer technology (refrigerators, air conditioning, food canning, etc.), and economic advances has not reduced aggregate or collective suffering. Although a person in medieval times did not crave these things, if we could give them these things, it would make life better for them and possibly give them an opportunity for happiness (if they exist as slave laborers, etc.).

So, is science and the physical context in which suffering occurs not also important? If a scientist finds a cure for a major disease, does this not alleviate suffering at least as much as a Dhamma talk? Shouldn't monks contribute to science, too, because of this?

Dukkha ("suffering") is distinguished from pain, which can also be a kind of neutral feeling. What we call "physical pain," is defined by not simply its physical, but the aversion to pain. A Buddha, from what I remember, is said to feel physical pain but does not experience it mentally. Recognizing the physical interaction, but not labeling it, "I" or "mine", the pain has no existential meaning for him; in a sense, it does not exist. An analogy might be Arnold Schwarzanegger as the Terminator -- in one scene of the movie, when asked if he feels pain, he says coldly that he detects injury, but does not experience the emotional response humans call pain. Is this similar to the Buddha's own experience of pain?

Like the analogy, however would be wary of making it look like we want to be turned into robots

But still, this doesn't negate the fact that scientific progress has an impact on suffering, because it removes various contexts in which craving might occur. I have heard descriptions of the lives of Egyptian laborers or those who built the Great Wall of China, or of the tribes in Africa today, and these kinds of primitive societies do not seem like they would make a person as happy as modern, prosperous nations. This coheres to what I've heard of psychology's view on the relationship between happiness and wealth: although extravagant wealth has no impact on happiness (the existence of luxuries does not remove craving, so no suffering reduced), but a basic subsistence, which could even be measured in dollars, does contribute to happiness. I think it's pretty naive, for instance, to actually believe the myth that Tibetans or Bhutanese can be dirt-poor, face political oppression, famine, disease, etc., and yet still be happier than average.

Of course the material needs must be fulfilled (unless one is an arahant) in order to decrease dukkha on the physical level but on the mental level it doesnt really impact that much, there is still ignorance and craving. All that may change is a change in the way an object is craved (i.e. food) or the craving may just switch to something else

If science does really cure all disease and fammine and war ends thus putting an end to some of the worst causes of material dukkha there will still be suffering because of the mental component, at the very least the dukkha inherent with "I"

Some people can be completely poor and yet happy and some people can be rich as hell and be unhappy (or visa versa) it all depends on their level of understanding of Dhamma. Not all poor people are happy nor they should stay like that, im all up for the redistribution of wealth (commie hat on ) but you can take someone who is really poor and suffering, give them money, healthcare and peace and yet they can still suffer

However, collectively it's a different matter. Nobody, as I see it, can deny that advancements in medicine, consumer technology (refrigerators, air conditioning, food canning, etc.), and economic advances has not reduced aggregate or collective suffering. Although a person in medieval times did not crave these things, if we could give them these things, it would make life better for them and possibly give them an opportunity for happiness (if they exist as slave laborers, etc.).

As i said above, you can give them all this but if there is still craving it will just search out something else so dukkha is still there. In essence you dont remove the root of the problem. The ideal, i think, is to help people out of poverty into decent living conditions etc and help them learn Dhamma, to me being out of poverty but not super rich is the middle way again

So, is science and the physical context in which suffering occurs not also important? If a scientist finds a cure for a major disease, does this not alleviate suffering at least as much as a Dhamma talk? Shouldn't monks contribute to science, too, because of this?

Of course it does, it helps to alleviate a form of it but not the root cause and not the main dukkha

metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

I agree wholly with your point that a certain level of wealth/provision of food/healthcare etc (the four necessities) is necessary to underwrite our happiness but I think it's easy to overstate the case that science alleviates suffering, mainly because suffering is only measurable from the inside and we're wholly biased when we make our estimates of it. It's true that from the outside and from our point of view, the life of a mediaeval peasant looks a lot worse - in terms of suffering - than that of a privileged first-worlder but I'm not sure that we can then infer from this that the mediaeval peasant suffers more than the privileged first-worlder. I think we (humans) have a marked tendency to inflate our experience of suffering to whatever the bounds of existence will justify, and we're very inventive at finding reasons to suffer. We might think that our privileged first-worlder sitting in therapy, dosed up on Prozac, crying his/her eyes out with the injustice of it all is a moaning old crybaby because, look, here's some real suffering in Darfur but that's not the point of suffering. It's a measure of our felt experience, not of the facts of our experience. And this is why, I think, a lot of talk about, for example, stem cell research is pointless if you can't also talk about the inevitability of suffering and death; perhaps all this science is just a way of avoiding precisely that discussion.

Lampang wrote:I think we (humans) have a marked tendency to inflate our experience of suffering to whatever the bounds of existence will justify, and we're very inventive at finding reasons to suffer. We might think that our privileged first-worlder sitting in therapy, dosed up on Prozac, crying his/her eyes out with the injustice of it all is a moaning old crybaby because, look, here's some real suffering in Darfur but that's not the point of suffering. It's a measure of our felt experience, not of the facts of our experience.

I acknowledge that to a point. Like I said, we measure our happiness by what's immediately available or unavailable, and comparatively with the rest of the people around us. So, in different times, people could be more or less happy.

But aside from practicing Buddhism by purifying one's own mind for one's own happiness, I would not accept the view that it is impossible or futile to help others be happy through material means. Thich Nhat Hanh and many Buddhists acknowledge this in the sense of political and social issues ("engaged Buddhism"), but then why wouldn't this also hold true for science? I believe it is possible not simply to improve the situation in Darfur through "engaged Buddhism," but also to engage in scientific research that cures or better treats major diseases, including mental illnesses like depression and generalized anxiety disorder, and this would make people happier. Perhaps in the long-term, some people might find new, creative things to be miserable about, but in the short-term, improving their condition would be happier and even then, we could just push scientific progress even further.

Happiness: Lessons from a New ScienceProduct DescriptionProduct DescriptionIn this landmark book, Richard Layard shows that there is a paradox at the heart of our lives. Most people want more income. Yet as societies become richer, they do not become happier. This is not just anecdotally true, it is the story told by countless pieces of scientific research. We now have sophisticated ways of measuring how happy people are, and all the evidence shows that on average people have grown no happier in the last fifty years, even as average incomes have more than doubled. In fact, the First World has more depression, more alcoholism and more crime than fifty years ago. This paradox is true of Britain, the United States, continental Europe, and Japan. What is going on?

About the AuthorRichard Layard is a leading economist who believes that the happiness of society does not necessarily equate to its income. He is best known for his work on unemployment and inequality, whihc provided the intellectual basis for Britain's improved unemployment policies. He founded the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, and since 2000 he has been a member of the House of Lords. His research into the subject of happiness brings together findings from such diverse areas as psychology, neuroscience, economics, sociology and philosophy.